Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

krelborne:Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

You sound capitalist.

(Tried to work fartbamacare and Nazis in there... but my thinking thing is already turned off for Friday night.)

krelborne:Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

That's pretty much what happened at Ford with the Pinto back in the 70's They calculated the cost of installing fuel system safety features ($25 per car), and then calculated the cost of paying out settlements for people who were Flambéd while riding in a Pinto. Total estimated cost of settlements to families of crispy-critters. was lower. Light me, Johnny.

Fissile: That's pretty much what happened at Ford with the Pinto back in the 70's They calculated the cost of installing fuel system safety features ($25 per car), and then calculated the cost of paying out settlements for people who were Flambéd while riding in a Pinto. Total estimated cost of settlements to families of crispy-critters. was lower. Light me, Johnny.

1) Install system2) Run a hard hitting commercial showing burned out cars, with charred dolls and toy fire trucks and shiat, mention the fuel safety systems3) End with the phrase "don't get burned".*) Hell, charge more than the $25 it cost.

ElLoco:krelborne: Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

You sound capitalist.

(Tried to work fartbamacare and Nazis in there... but my thinking thing is already turned off for Friday night.)

krelborne:Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

lordargent:Fissile: That's pretty much what happened at Ford with the Pinto back in the 70's They calculated the cost of installing fuel system safety features ($25 per car), and then calculated the cost of paying out settlements for people who were Flambéd while riding in a Pinto. Total estimated cost of settlements to families of crispy-critters. was lower. Light me, Johnny.

1) Install system2) Run a hard hitting commercial showing burned out cars, with charred dolls and toy fire trucks and shiat, mention the fuel safety systems3) End with the phrase "don't get burned".*) Hell, charge more than the $25 it cost.

Interestingly, Ford was a pioneer in automobile passenger safety back in the 1950s. In the 50s Ford promoted safety features that were offered on their cars, usually as options (the feds didn't require much at the time). Lap belts, padded dashboards (most car dashboards were steel), collapsing steering columns and the like. The people running GM at the time went berserk, and threatened to sue Ford for implying that GM cars were not safe. As far as GM was concerned, it was understood that motoring was a safe undertaking, and therefore was no reason for needlessly alarming the public about auto safety.

Ah, the good 'ol days, when we didn't have any of that pesky regulation.

krelborne:Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

krelborne:Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

almost spot on.

my csb:Used to work in a place that made transmissions for an un-named American auto manufacturer. We had a problem. Several thousand units got out with a failure called "jump out". Essentially the synchros that engage/disengage gears had a stack height problem. The car could jump in or out of gear by itself. worse you could theoretically shift into reverse at 50 mph. Extraordinarily dangerous. They calculated not only the cost of the deaths and damage but also the cost of reputation if we admitted that there was an issue. I was stunned by the lack of humanity in any of the decision making process. They decided Fark those people. When units would show up on warranty for repair we would claim operator abuse and deny the repair so we never had to admit the problem we knew existed. The NTSB was waved off as Obama was bailing out our customer at the time. No one died that I know of but.....

Jim DiGriz:ElLoco: krelborne: Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

You sound capitalist.

(Tried to work fartbamacare and Nazis in there... but my thinking thing is already turned off for Friday night.)

I used to work for a company that built large scale automated welders. One of our clients wanted a welder that could take sheets of metal and bend/weld them into rims for large John Deere tractors and other oversize vehicles. The welder itself had a design flaw that would leave about 25-30% of the weld below spec. The left side of the weld would be perfectly fine, but the right quarter would fail stress testing.

I pointed out what I thought the issue was to the mechanical engineer (Russian guy) and he pretty much said, "Yeah, you're right - but it would cost too much to fix it at this point." When I asked him about failures in the field, he paused for a minute, then said "Eh, I'll be back in Russia by then."

I used to work for a company that built large scale automated welders. One of our clients wanted a welder that could take sheets of metal and bend/weld them into rims for large John Deere tractors and other oversize vehicles. The welder itself had a design flaw that would leave about 25-30% of the weld below spec. The left side of the weld would be perfectly fine, but the right quarter would fail stress testing.

I pointed out what I thought the issue was to the mechanical engineer (Russian guy) and he pretty much said, "Yeah, you're right - but it would cost too much to fix it at this point." When I asked him about failures in the field, he paused for a minute, then said "Eh, I'll be back in Russia by then."

From what I am have heard so far, every recall we hear about, there are two other problems with your car waiting to kill you that the engineers knew about before production was started.

The same guy who told me about the GM 3.1 and 3.4 V6 motor issue, told me how he caught a problem caused by another engineer which that engineer went into a major meltdown about my friend finding something wrong with his work. I wonder how many other projects the hot headed engineer screwed up and no one would go against him.

I used to work for a company that built large scale automated welders. One of our clients wanted a welder that could take sheets of metal and bend/weld them into rims for large John Deere tractors and other oversize vehicles. The welder itself had a design flaw that would leave about 25-30% of the weld below spec. The left side of the weld would be perfectly fine, but the right quarter would fail stress testing.

I pointed out what I thought the issue was to the mechanical engineer (Russian guy) and he pretty much said, "Yeah, you're right - but it would cost too much to fix it at this point." When I asked him about failures in the field, he paused for a minute, then said "Eh, I'll be back in Russia by then."

From what I am have heard so far, every recall we hear about, there are two other problems with your car waiting to kill you that the engineers knew about before production was started.

The same guy who told me about the GM 3.1 and 3.4 V6 motor issue, told me how he caught a problem caused by another engineer which that engineer went into a major meltdown about my friend finding something wrong with his work. I wonder how many other projects the hot headed engineer screwed up and no one would go against him.

So, uh, what IS the problem with the GM 3.1 and 3.4L V6es? I only ask because my wife used to own an Equinox that had the 3.4L engine and that vehicle was a heap of shiat. Window regulators crapped out one by one, weird electrical gremlins in the instrument panel, the inner door handles kept breaking (which in combination with the windows not wanting to go down made exiting the vehicle a challenge), the camshaft position sensor quit multiple times... I despised that vehicle. The day that all the switchgear behind the dash quit at the same time, we sold the damned thing and bought a gently used Jeep for cash. Best vehicular decision we ever made.

Towermonkey:The day that all the switchgear behind the dash quit at the same time, we sold the damned thing

What did you get, a bag of nickels or sumthin'? From a scrapyard?

GM engenders more love/hate stories than any other brand, I think. I really liked my '03 Gran Prix GT, but I didn't like (in no particular order) the intake gasket, the water pump, the fuel pump, the radiator, the spark plug positioning, the fender well rust, the.... well, you get it.

stuffy:If you owned a defective zip line. Knew it was dangerous. Still let someone use it and they died. Your ass would be criminally liable. So why aren't GM execs?

You're only liable if you're an idiot. Hire some dumbass carnie "independent operators" to rent the zip li e from you, and set it up at state fairs where the goat judges sign off on the inspection paperwork. You can put up enough legal fiction that nobody has to take responsibility for anything.

Well, maybe the carnie will get sued, but carnies don't have money, so its not like they'll care.

Dodge is a POS too. I had a 2003 Caravan that ran GREAT for a couple of years, then the PCM module died, turning it into a 3000 lb paper weight.

Got a mechanic to look at it, he quoted me 1100.00 for the part since it had to be programmed with the VIN and the odometer reading in order to work with the OTHER components in the vehicle.

After we got that installed, it ran fine for a month before crapping out. Called the mechanic and had him tell me that the part only had a 14 day warranty on it and if I wanted it fixed it would cost another 1100.00. Apparently this was a known problem, but since I bought it used, it wasn't covered under the manufacturer warranty/recall/whatever.

Since I was unemployed at the time and wasn't going to be able to afford it anymore, I called Capitol One, told them I didn't have shiat in my wallet, and gave them the address to come and get the car. It was gone 3 days later.

aspAddict:Dodge is a POS too. I had a 2003 Caravan that ran GREAT for a couple of years, then the PCM module died, turning it into a 3000 lb paper weight.

Got a mechanic to look at it, he quoted me 1100.00 for the part since it had to be programmed with the VIN and the odometer reading in order to work with the OTHER components in the vehicle.

After we got that installed, it ran fine for a month before crapping out. Called the mechanic and had him tell me that the part only had a 14 day warranty on it and if I wanted it fixed it would cost another 1100.00. Apparently this was a known problem, but since I bought it used, it wasn't covered under the manufacturer warranty/recall/whatever.

Since I was unemployed at the time and wasn't going to be able to afford it anymore, I called Capitol One, told them I didn't have shiat in my wallet, and gave them the address to come and get the car. It was gone 3 days later.

krelborne:Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

So... financially AND morally bankrupt? I wonder what the third part of that trifecta is going to be.

I got tired of fixing cars made by Americans and/or American companies and so quit buying them about eight years ago. You've gotta go old to buy a foreign car around here these days, but it's worth it... and not just for the good reliability, easy and inexpensive maintenance, cheap registration, emissions (fee) exemption, good fuel mileage, value-appreciation, and people smiling and waving at you.

Thanks. While we're on the subject of Fight Club, is BMFPitt supposed to stand for "Brad Mother-F[ark]ing Pitt"?

Also, Priapetic re: Carroll Towing: That's one of the most pernicious decisions of all time. It applies a strict total-utilitarian calculus and lumps both parties together into a single unit without considering who has the right not to be harmed, in the process holding that the harmed party can't recover if the party inflicting the harm benefits more than the harmed party suffers. That's even worse than the Fight Club calculus, as it in effect lets companies who are on the benefited side of that calculus get away without even compensating the harmed parties. Better (or less bad) to set standards of due care in terms of ethical/moral duties to avoid harming others and award compensation whenever those standards are breached, such that even if companies breach them when they think it profitable to do so, at least the harmed parties can recover. Better (or less bad) still is to award costs and attorneys' fees to the prevailing party so that the breaches will occur only when the companies think that the benefit will exceed damage payouts plus transaction costs. Of course, I'd prefer that in at least some scenarios the tort laws themselves be backed up by criminal laws that deter even so-called "efficient" breaches, but that's just the deontologist in me.

There's a law-journal article or student note titled "The Moral Repugnance of the Learned Hand Formula" (I think) -- sounds about right to me.

SlowTimedRapid:Thanks. While we're on the subject of Fight Club, is BMFPitt supposed to stand for "Brad Mother-F[ark]ing Pitt"?

No, although lots of people have asked me that. The BMF comes from my group of friends in college - The Bad Mother [Farker] organization - whose name evolved from me deciding after watching Pulp Fiction to name my PC that, so when someone asked where they could grab a some of my MP3s (ah, the late 90's) I could just tell them to get on the network and browse my computer. (Which one?) It's the one that says BadMotherFarker. It came in handy as a clan tag in Half Life and such, and was adopted for various other endeavors, including a film studio and my fantasy football league.

The second part was how I was known among that group. I'm from Pittsburgh, with a yinzer accent, and a lot of team apparel. My freshman roommate called me Pittsburgh, which others shortened to Pitt.

I've been meaning to write up the etymology of my name for a while to put in my profile, so thanks for motivating me.

GM sucks--bought a Hummer H3 IN 2006, Now has 125,000 miles. Dealer says engine has low compression (defective pistons) and needs to 6 grand to be fixed. If not, the car will die in 3 months. Turns out GM knew their H3s had this design defect since 2008 and never notified consumers. Of course H3s are no longer being produced. I biatched to the dealer an to GM several times. They finally said they couldn't help us--of course I reminded them how they were bailed by the gummint when they were down. I asked to speak to the person who made the decision not to fix the known design defect. I was told the computer made the call. I said "an algorithm made the decision, not a human being?" They said "yes." Eff GM, tell all your friends what douches they are.